K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:16 am
Oldgringo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:25 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:22 pm
Oldgringo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:15 pm
Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.
We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.
Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.
Your point is?
My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.
I detest all or nothing arrangements. We have given up any chance for compromise every time we get into a situation where at least one side of the discussion says "accept everything that I believe/want or you are a xxxxxxx" I support law enforcement. I abhor them doing no knock raids and civil asset forfeiture. I would extend it to the officers themselves - they should be unwilling to stand behind one of their brothers/sisters who is clearly breaking the law or tarnishing their department. I want to give every officer the benefit of the doubt for the situations that they encounter. I want to facts to come out. But, like Erik Scott and others, I don't want the facts swept under the rug.